Theory of Evolution anyone ?

Man_of_Faith

Peace Jafar,

Your response was not exactly what I was thinking of. I meant that the illusion of a natural evolution is a trap for the people or God could have made so it is obvious that it was all already evolved at a breaking point in history. But it was not.

God bless you

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaika Brother MoF.

Not Sure what you mean by trap... it is not clear from your response whether you believe in the evolution process or not.

What we observe in the natural word - the evidences from fossil records and DNA records of verious species is the manifestation of the truth (not a trap). Natural world does not lie - falshood is creation of men. I do not believe Allah is playing a game of cat and mouse with us.

The truth is from your Master - so do not be among the doubters.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I give up here because I seem not to have been able to convey the meaning twice.

BobaFett

Salamun Alaikum Brother.

The so called "ridiculous" idea appears to be also supported by the Qur'an statements like every creature was created from water (2445) or humans were created from clay (2312).

Selam brother.

Like I said above(in less words), if you are suggesting that God evolved things by directly making them evolve in stages that He decides are best then I cannot argue against this, God is all powerful and can do anything. If He decided this is the best path for His creation then there is no reason He could not do it in this way.

But this is what the thread starter asked

I would like to know my the point of view of the members of this site on the subject of Evolution.

By Evolution I mean , Darwinian evolution, evolution by natural selection.

I only read the first 2 pages before I got bored then I read the last page, so my apologies if the topic has shifted. I stand by my claim that it is ridiculous to believe that evolution through natural selection and random mutation is possible.

The idea that Qur'an supports the theory of evolution is supported widely even in some cases by traditionalists. For example you may check the site below

Lots of things are supported widely bro, without facts it means nothing.

https//www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

^ this is a good article highlighting the logical flaws in giving weight to consensus opinions.

It's kinda long so I'll highlight the most relevant parts

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor?southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result?despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology?until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy? The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Anyway, about the link you gave me.. It seems like the guy is trying to force pieces of a puzzle no matter if they fit or not.

Say "Travel through the Earth and see how He began the Creation. Then, Allah makes the latter Creation. Allah is capable of (doing) everything" (Al-'Ankaboot, 29 20).

This states the Allah makes the latter creation, so it cannot be referring to Darwinian evolution.

Have not those who disbelieve seen (known) that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them (from each other), and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe? (Al-Anbiya', 21 30).

How does "creating every living thing out of water" mean evolution..?

O humans! Be pious (careful of your duty) to your Lord, Who created you from a single self (soul), and from it He created its mate, and from them He has spread a multitude of men and women (Al-Nissa, 4 1).

This is obviously referring to Adam and Eve and their offspring. The author goes on to say

This verse tells us that the beginning of life was a single self (soul), then its mate came out of it. Biological science tells us that the earliest form of life was represented by single cell organisms found in water, then these multiplied by splitting themselves. With the course of time, reproduction evolved to become by mating pairs, instead of the archaic forms of splitting or dividing.

So from "single self" we get single celled organism? Then he goes on to say that they multiplied by splitting themselves, but the verse clearly says that God "created its mate".

And then it says "from them He has spread a multitude of men and women". This is obviously referring to sexual reproduction when if it was referring to unicellular life it should be asexual reproduction. Also unicellular life does not have gender.

We know that almost all animals except kangaroos (and penguins) walk on four legs. However, for Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) and old world humans at the time of revelation (1429 years ago), they did not know that there was an animal which walked on two legs in Australia. Only God knew that and has told us about it, as another piece of evidence that He is the author of the Holy Qur?an, not any human being.

Sure, if you don't count arachnids and insects.. Also, birds are bipedal, I'm sure the Prophet was not a stranger to birds.

32.7. (Allah is He) who has made everything He created better, and He began the creation of the human (being) out of clay.

I can see how this could point to evolution, but still not Darwinian evolution. I could also make a case against it.

"Here we report exceptionally preserved fossil eyes from the Early Cambrian (~515 million years ago) Emu Bay Shale of South Australia, revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes, each with over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses and a specialized ?bright zone?.

...

The arrangement and size of the lenses indicate that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light. The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms."

http//www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7353/abs/nature10097.html

Basically the oldest known bug eyes(from 515 mya) are as complex as many modern bug eyes.

50.15. Were We then tired with the first creation? (No), they (nonbelievers) are in confusion about a new creation (resurrection).

This verse confirms the meaning included in 32.7, saying that there was a first creation, the creation of life, which then evolved according to a long process of learning how to adaptat to the environemnt.

It doesn't confirm 327 at all, it is talking about different things. 327 is talking about how God created Humanity, 5015 is talking about our resurrection from what I can tell.

The scientific evidence available to us tells us that the beginning of life was in an environment similar to swamps, which are composed basically of water and and earth matter. This produced clay, where the first forms of life began in the form of single cell organisms.

What is the scientific evidence suggesting that this is how life started? Also clay only has trace amounts of organic matter.

71.14. He has created you in diverse (and successive) stages.

I can also see how this could indicate that divinely guided evolution is true, but it is still at odds with Darwinian evolution. But it could also be referring to the developmental stages of a human from zygote to embryo to fetus etc.

Anyway it is a long article so I hope you'll forgive me but I'm going to stop my analysis here. If there is a point you think stands out feel free to highlight it and I will do my best to answer.

Sonny

There is more truth in 'Alice in Wonderland' than is in theory of evolution.

BobaFett

Now I will make more clear why I think it is ridiculous to believe that life just came together in a swamp or any body of water by it self, which is what Darwinian evolution implies.

orphan genes

Orphan genes are genes that do not share homologues in genomes of other organisms. This means that they cannot be linked to other lineages based on gene sequences. Depending on what analysis of known species? genomes that is examined, it will indicate orphan genes constitute somewhere between 1-30% of the functional genes in the genome, where 10-20% as the most accepted range.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_gene

So all creatures have these orphan genes(10-20% of the genome) that cannot be traced to any other creature. So much for the scientific consensus that we share 98% of our genes with chimps ey? When you factor in "junk" dna the percentage we share drops even lower.

Chirality

Chirality referres to "handedness".

From the link I gave in my first post

"Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.17 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.

DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides needed to form a DNA molecule, or the hundreds of amino acids needed to form a protein molecule were able to combine from the mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. This is the problem of "chirality", and evolutionists have never been able to solve it."

According to Darwinian evolution everything evolved from the most basic unicelled organisms. These organisms came from amino acids and proteins etc. The claim is that they don't know how but these ingredients somehow gave rise to the first unicellular life, some claim the water was struck by lightning etc.

Here is the problem with that story..

Replication, recombination, and repair
Transcription
Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
Defense mechanisms
Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
Signal transduction mechanisms
Intracellular trafficking and secretion
Translation
Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
Energy production and conversion
Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
Amino acid transport and metabolism
Nucleotide transport and metabolism
Coenzyme transport and metabolism
Lipid transport and metabolism
Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism

^ That is a list of all the things required(as far as we know, there might be more added to the list as our knowledge increases) for a cell to function. They must all be present in the cell at the same time, take away any of them and the cell is destroyed, there is no known way for this to happen through gradual evolution.

Currently the story is that all these "building blocks of life" were floating around in water then something happened(like lightning striking the water) and all these proteins and amino acids magically fell into place and formed everything listed above. So I'll say it again, the idea that this can happen through natural processes is ridiculous.

Armanaziz

Salam brother.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo

Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous. What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.

This brings me to your following remark

...if you are suggesting that God evolved things by directly making them evolve in stages that He decides are best then I cannot argue against this, God is all powerful and can do anything. If He decided this is the best path for His creation then there is no reason He could not do it in this way.

Let me make a few comments on this statement.

Yes, you specified quite clearly what I am suggesting.
Do you also believe in above or something different?

If you believe in something different -

I beg you to teach me what you believe - with equal level of intellectual rigor that you apply on the theory of evolution. I am eager to learn the alternate theory. If the alternate theory is God created a human shape from clay - literally with His own hands - and then literally breathed life to this doll and then transported two living dolls either in a spaceship or some sort of "inter-dimensional portal" to earth - and then these two humans managed to survive in this hostile world and managed to give rise to human race - Then my friend I am sorry, this theory does not pass the test of my intellect based on what I observe in this world. I believe in my God who gave me my intellect and conscience - I submit to God by upholding my intellect and conscience. Fortunately for me when I read Qur'an I find no compelling reason to accept any theory which my intellect does not support.

If, however, you believe in something similar to me, that is, God created us through the process of evolution -

Then my brother - what is the whole point of debate? I believe in gravity, don't you? I believe two objects of mass attract each other because God has created this rule and every object follows this rule. But for that reason I do not debate the theory of gravity and say I rather believe in "Guided Gravity" or "Intelligent Gravity". If I can believe in gravity as is - as scientists describe it and then also know inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way... what is the problem with accepting evolution / natural selection as described by scientists and then knowing inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way. Qur'an asks us to travel through earth and see how God began creation - not read the holy book and see how God started creation.

We need to remember - scientists deal with the observable world - they work with hard data and physical evidence. Allah is in the unobservable realm (al ghaib). We can feel Him, we can know Him - but can never make Him subject to the microscope of scientists. I know you are extremely critical about the idea of consensus for scientists - but as humans that's the best we have got at the moment. So why not accept the current scientific consensus of collective human intellect as the best possible interpretation of the material world (the What and How part of it) until a new consensus develops; and at the same time rely on our conscience and the guidance of the holy books to understand the unobservable aspects of it (the Why part of it). That is the approach we are taking about every other scientific theory, why does evolution needs to be different?

So, as far as I am concerned, did life just came from some "primordial soup"? Yes, most likely it did (until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

huruf

Indeed, great post, Bobafett.

There has been a phenomenon in science which has been very detrimental to it and it has been the creation the star scientist. It may have started with Darwin.

Ideologically, Darwin arranged very well the imperial designs and mindset. So he was made a star. To say "evolution" is to glorify Darwin, but he didn't invent evolution and what he did was to push an idea of evolution which matched ideollogically imperial designs. There are vested interests in maintaning "Darwinian" evolution. Many scientists worked hard on theories of evolution, but all of them were pushed out as if they came from lepers. On the other hand, "darwinian" evolution has been rearranged and rearranged, because the flaws kept cropping up, but the stardom of the man and his "natural selection" (before it was de survival of the fittest) had to be preserved at whatever cost. Yes, very fit Darwin and his managers survivin and surviving.

Very well said the part about the "consensus" science. The examples given are good but I remember the Ptolemy atronomy, with the earth as fixed center, how many centuries that consensus in science did last? It was science right? It must have been true...

The fact is that finding out how life started scientifically (as is the case of many other things) is very difficult, and that there is no reason why anybody should get desperate because we do not kinow, nor since we do not know are we under the obligation of clinging to whatever theory they give us to feel that we are above ignorance and know everything.

Of course we do not know everything, nor will ever, but we may keep learning humbly through time. What we do not need is to adopt anything as "scientific" when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it nor start crusades against the ignorant based on things we ourselves do not know.

As to the Qur'an we should BEWARE. We should not be in a hurry to make it match any current scientific fashion, and anything that is undemonstrated and unverified and still pushed down our throats as knowledge, is nothing but scientific fashion. The Qur'an is right, but if it speaks about things of which we yet have no knowledge we are not going to recognize them. To arrange the words of the Qur'an so that they fit the current scientific fashions is cheating ourselves and doing a flawed service to the Qur'an and to those who do not believe in it confirming that the Qur'an is bullshit. We should not tie the Qur'an to any "scientific" purported knowledge. When the Qur'an shows such knowledge and that knowledge really exists if it fits, it fits seamlessly, no need to arrange anything in the Qur'an at all. We may not be sure but the Qur'an is perfectly sure about what it says, it does not hesitate, show gaps or needs to tread carefully. It has knoweledge and it is thorough knowledge.

Just one thing, Bobafett, for the sake of thoroughness there is not talk of Adam and Eve in the Qur'an.

And thanks for the texts quoted.

Evolution is a fact indeed, but where and how it applies is something else. There have been many theories about it. For a long time, for instance, and after the "darwinian redemption" the formula "function creates the organ" has been despised and ridiculed. But at cell level even atomic level it seems that it was not completely wrong after all and that randomness is not the cause of everything, may be it not the cause of anything at all.

Those who believe in what the Qur'an says, could hardly believe in randomness as the universe ruler, at least that is my feeling and thinking.

Salaam

Jafar

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo

Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous.

Explain "primordial soup"..

What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.

Explain then "how did wet clay become human"?

Every "carbon based living being" evolved from carbon.
Carbon evolved from another type of particle.

This paper discussed about the presence of Carbon in the universe.
http//www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5397/2204.full

Everything went through evolution..

Having said that, not all 'living being" is based on Carbon, there could be a 'non carbon base lifeform'.

Limiting the scope to only "human", although the exact definition of 'human' is also debatable.

Human is an earth bound animal, a mammalia and a primate.
The human evolved from another form of earlier humanoid. (Homo erectus and friends)
Which in turn evolved from another form of primate.
Which in turn evolved from another form of mammal.
Which in turn evolved from another form of animal.
Which in turn evolved from another form of one cell being.
Which in turn evolved from another form of carbon based being.
Which in turn evolved from another form of particle.
Which in turn evolved from another form of non-particle.

Thus it's also correct to state that human is the son of the star, or the son of nebula gas or the son of carbon etc..

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Of course we do not know everything, nor will ever, but we may keep learning humbly through time.

Could not agree more! A theory is a theory we must understand it is not the absolute truth. It is subject to continuous scrutiny and change. But the part of the "humble" learning process is to accept the current consensus as the "best we have" and then to refine or challenge it with more research and investigation. To reach to step 2, we need to first step on step 1. I am sure even Copernicus / Galileo first started off with accepting the Ptolemy model - but later they moved away from it based on further research and investigation. Qur'an says the sun and the moon float, each in an orbit. before Copernicus / Galileo followers of Qur'an understood these orbits to be around earth, one science moved on - they found that Qur'an does not necessarily contradict the new scientific consensus - so they accepted it. That's how we remain open to science and sincere to our scripture.

What we do not need is to adopt anything as "scientific" when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it ...

Nor do we need to challenge the current scientific consensus just because our forefathers did so when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it either. If we are convinced that we can scientifically prove the current consensus wrong - we should reach out to scientists community / science journals etc. with our original research (like Copernicus / Galileo did). Until our objection stands the test of collective scrutiny of mankind our opinion remains just that - an opinion. Once it passes the hurdle - it becomes the new consensus.

...nor start crusades against the ignorant based on things we ourselves do not know.

Sure - but in reality who is in crusade against whom? I do not see any science lover ready to kill a person for his rejection of evolution theory - but I do see fanatics who would be ready to kill "apostates" for believing in evolution theory.

We should not tie the Qur'an to any "scientific" purported knowledge. When the Qur'an shows such knowledge and that knowledge really exists if it fits, it fits seamlessly, no need to arrange anything in the Qur'an at all. We may not be sure but the Qur'an is perfectly sure about what it says, it does not hesitate, show gaps or needs to tread carefully. It has knoweledge and it is thorough knowledge.

The question here is not about tieing Qur'an with anything. The question here is whether we can reject the current scientific consensus based on what Qur'an says. As per my humble reading of the Qur'an the theory of evolution fits quite seamlessly with it. The question of arrangement - rearrangement may not be relevant here because I do not see Qur'an to be arranged in a way to explain scientific theories one by one - so an expectation to find supports of evolution theory arranged in a nice paragraph may be an over-expectation. The key question here is - does Qur'an contradict the current scientific consensus? As far as I am concerned, it does NOT.

If anyone believes Qur'an does contradict evolution theory - I am eager to learn HOW.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

If anyone believes Qur'an does contradict evolution theory - I am eager to learn HOW.

The problem with your approach is that you are viewing evolution as a theory, when in truth it is nothing but an ideology that is full of holes, propagated purely for political reasons.

We have been placed between a hammer and an anvil Either we must take evolution as an undisputable fact, not open to any debate, OR we have to believe in the Biblical fairytale of God creating a clay figurine and then blowing into it, thus turning it into a living man called Adam.

No third option has been given to us.

And therefore, when we read the passages of our creation in the Quran, we end up reading it either through the spectacles of Darwin and Co., or through the spectacles of Ka'ab al-Ahbar, the great Rabbi of Sana'a, and his two studious pupils, Abu Hurayra and Ibn Abbas, the "best interpreters" of the Quran.

God forbid we let the Quran speak for itself! Isn't it?

I would like you to take a look at the following simple sentence from the Quran, if you truly believe it to be the word of Divinity, and tell me, without beating around the bush, without resorting to acrobatics or manipulation, what it means to you

{And Allah made you grow from the earth as plants}...

huruf

Salamun Alaikum.

Could not agree more! A theory is a theory we must understand it is not the absolute truth. It is subject to continuous scrutiny and change. But the part of the "humble" learning process is to accept the current consensus as the "best we have" and then to refine or challenge it with more research and investigation. To reach to step 2, we need to first step on step 1. I am sure even Copernicus / Galileo first started off with accepting the Ptolemy model - but later they moved away from it based on further research and investigation. Qur'an says the sun and the moon float, each in an orbit. before Copernicus / Galileo followers of Qur'an understood these orbits to be around earth, one science moved on - they found that Qur'an does not necessarily contradict the new scientific consensus - so they accepted it. That's how we remain open to science and sincere to our scripture.

Nor do we need to challenge the current scientific consensus just because our forefathers did so when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it either. If we are convinced that we can scientifically prove the current consensus wrong - we should reach out to scientists community / science journals etc. with our original research (like Copernicus / Galileo did). Until our objection stands the test of collective scrutiny of mankind our opinion remains just that - an opinion. Once it passes the hurdle - it becomes the new consensus.

Sure - but in reality who is in crusade against whom? I do not see any science lover ready to kill a person for his rejection of evolution theory - but I do see fanatics who would be ready to kill "apostates" for believing in evolution theory.
The question here is not about tieing Qur'an with anything. The question here is whether we can reject the current scientific consensus based on what Qur'an says. As per my humble reading of the Qur'an the theory of evolution fits quite seamlessly with it. The question of arrangement - rearrangement may not be relevant here because I do not see Qur'an to be arranged in a way to explain scientific theories one by one - so an expectation to find supports of evolution theory arranged in a nice paragraph may be an over-expectation. The key question here is - does Qur'an contradict the current scientific consensus? As far as I am concerned, it does NOT.

If anyone believes Qur'an does contradict evolution theory - I am eager to learn HOW.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

No, no question of accepting consensus in science. If it works it works, if it does not, no matter how much consensus there is, facts cannot be denied. The fact that persons feel compelled to shut up if they do not see eye to eye with consensus in scientific matters, does not change facts. Facts are facts, there is no consensus needed for them to exist. And nobody is under the duty of becoming blind betcause there happens to be a consensus that this or that should not be seen. If we establish such an aberration in science, we will be going in a path to hell.

You keep speaking about evolution. I think nobody here has denied that there is evolution, that evolution exists, the Qur'an says so.

BUT, big BUT, what kind of evolution? That is the question. "Darwinian evolution" is bullshit, it is imperial ideology hidden under a cloak of scientific pretences. Not even consensus exists on "Darwinian" evolution. That is, consensus may exist amongst "darwinian evolutionists".

Scientific stardom is the denial of science, but we live today in an age of scientific starlets and there are people who delight in just being able to voice the sweet name of god Darwin or Einstein and may be two or three more. Science has been reduced to that, to a couple of popular names attached to a couple of great sounding important words and then one can plapper around as much as one wants and sound up to date.

So, once again, no, the Qur'an does not support "darwinian evolution". Randomness as the sufficient cause of everything? On the other hand, how do you intend to make the Qur'an fit seamslessly with a series of theories that change according to from where the wind blows which is the set of theories comprised under "darwinian evolution"? How can you make it fit to something that changes continually to adapt to the errors that keep cropping up because simply the theory was neither prooved nor well grounded from the beginning nor it was intended to be? But it is embraced as if it was a religious cause.

You say that no damage has been done by darwinian evolution? Not under that name but it is one of the pillars that sustain the greater establishment if imperial wars and dominions and those have made plenty of victims. Not that emperial establishment it is a product of the "darwinian mind", the darwinian mind is the product of the imperial mentality and an instrument of it. One serves at his or her own peril. .

And I repeat, and Pazuzu has very pointedly underscored it in the previous message

we are nto stuck between having to swallow darwinian evolution line hook an sinker or to deny evolution. Nobody denies anything, but all people want truth, not fashion nor political correctness. And no, there is no consensus in science, if one thinks something is not true, it is not becoming true because you submit yourself to a consensus. As somebody has already said, that would be politics, not science. If that line between consensus and truth is blurred, then we are lost. And may be that is the reason why so many nations, muslim or not muslim are being kept down. The passion for science is a passion for knowledge and truth without compromise. It sets nobody in danger, tehrefore no need for consensus. If we bring science to the scope of politics, forget it, bye bye science. And we are mostly there now. There is no truth if it is an inconvenient truth, either for getting funds or for getting a cv or whatever.

I sincerelly hope that this is a crisis and that after that there may be a regeneration of spirits and minds and knowledge may again gain respect over lesser things, like popularity, brainwashing, etc. etc.

Salaam

huruf

The problem with your approach is that you are viewing evolution as a theory, when in truth it is nothing but an ideology that is full of holes, propagated purely for political reasons.

We have been placed between a hammer and an anvil Either we must take evolution as an undisputable fact, not open to any debate, OR we have to believe in the Biblical fairytale of God creating a clay figurine and then blowing into it, thus turning it into a living man called Adam.

No third option has been given to us.

And therefore, when we read the passages of our creation in the Quran, we end up reading it either through the spectacles of Darwin and Co., or through the spectacles of Ka'ab al-Ahbar, the great Rabbi of Sana'a, and his two studious pupils, Abu Hurayra and Ibn Abbas, the "best interpreters" of the Quran.

God forbid we let the Quran speak for itself! Isn't it?

I would like you to take a look at the following simple sentence from the Quran, if you truly believe it to be the word of Divinity, and tell me, without beating around the bush, without resorting to acrobatics or manipulation, what it means to you

{And Allah made you grow from the earth as plants}...

I am so glad to read you... It is so estimulating to see what new stone you are going to upturn and what we find underneath...

Great work on the Qur'an, worthwhile. So much of it has been kept from under the compulsion to make it fit preconceptions... One wonders whether there should not be a Qur'an Liberation Front ...

Thank you for your work and independence.

Salaam

Sabeel_Ameer

excellent post by Pazuzu.

from the verse, i think that the mankind populated like vegetation on the basis of earth/soil. we are from soil and return to soil.

BobaFett

Peace brother.

I would like to start by saying I think Huruf and pazuzu are spot on.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo

I wouldn't call it vast, most of it is in the links I provided mate. )

Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous.

Again bro, I am talking about Darwinian Evolution, this is not the same as the theistic evolution you seem to believe.

What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.

In the natural world it is impossible. Science is the study of the natural world, so scientifically it is impossible. God is not bound by science so for Him anything is possible.. I don't know how to make this any clearer. He can make life from clay, or anything else He chooses to.

It's the same with the big bang, it is scientifically impossible, that's why scientists say the laws of physics break down in the singularity which gave birth to the big bang(look up the plank epoch). What this means is that our known scientific laws do not apply to it, it makes no sense scientifically.. it is a supernatural event, of course no scientist will ever admit this.

Let me make a few comments on this statement.

Yes, you specified quite clearly what I am suggesting.
Do you also believe in above or something different?

I believe that based on our current scientific knowledge the best answer is "we don't know".

I beg you to teach me what you believe - with equal level of intellectual rigor that you apply on the theory of evolution. I am eager to learn the alternate theory.

I'm sorry bro but I do not have an alternate theory. If someone asks me what is 3145 x 7427 I would not be able to answer, but if the guy next to me said that the answer is 10 I would know he is wrong. It is much easier to tell what is false than to tell what is true.

If the alternate theory is God created a human shape from clay - literally with His own hands - and then literally breathed life to this doll and then transported two living dolls either in a spaceship or some sort of "inter-dimensional portal" to earth - and then these two humans managed to survive in this hostile world and managed to give rise to human race - Then my friend I am sorry, this theory does not pass the test of my intellect based on what I observe in this world.

Interesting, can you explain why you believe that an omnipotent God would be incapable of doing what you said above? What do you observe in this world that suggests God could not do this?

Secondly, the version you gave of creationism above is a very crude one.

I believe in my God who gave me my intellect and conscience - I submit to God by upholding my intellect and conscience. Fortunately for me when I read Qur'an I find no compelling reason to accept any theory which my intellect does not support.

3372 - Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool.

Your intellect cannot accept that God created Adam from clay and placed him on Earth but it has no problem with the sky and earth and hills/mountains being able to think for themselves and decline the trust and know fear?

If, however, you believe in something similar to me, that is, God created us through the process of evolution -

Then my brother - what is the whole point of debate?

I really don't know what the point is, I have already stated several times that I believe it is possible. I have also stated several times that when I say it is not possible I am referring to Darwinian evolution... which again, is what this thread is about.

I believe in gravity, don't you? I believe two objects of mass attract each other because God has created this rule and every object follows this rule.

So where's the graviton? Do you realise that gravity is still one of the mysteries of science? It is the main reason we cannot fit quantum physics and general relativity together.

Also, even if I do believe in gravity what does that have to do with evolution?

what is the problem with accepting evolution / natural selection as described by scientists and then knowing inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way.

The problem is that the science doesn't support your claims. If it does bring your evidence.

The problem is that the sole reason evolution theory gets so much attention is because it is a step towards not needing God to explain how life came to be. Think about it, what is the importance of evolution theory? What has it given us? Nothing, yet it is by far the most talked about scientific theory.

I suggest you read this article

http//www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

Here is part of it to help illustrate what I mean, but you should read the whole thing.

In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin?s and Alfred Russel Wallace?s evolutionary theories.

The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.

Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.

We need to remember - scientists deal with the observable world - they work with hard data and physical evidence. Allah is in the unobservable realm (al ghaib). We can feel Him, we can know Him - but can never make Him subject to the microscope of scientists. I know you are extremely critical about the idea of consensus for scientists - but as humans that's the best we have got at the moment

What are you saying?? That since this is the best we can do I should accept evolution as true? Where is the logic in this? I have shown you several cases of the consensus being wrong, why should I accept this one? There is nothing intellectual or scientific about your approach to this topic.

So why not accept the current scientific consensus of collective human intellect as the best possible interpretation of the material world (the What and How part of it) until a new consensus develops;

Have I not made it clear why I do not accept the "current scientific consensus of collective human intellect"? You are also implying that all scientists are in agreement about evolution which is not correct. All the information I have given you is also from scientists, one group just gets more funding and attention from mass media.. I wonder why?

That is the approach we are taking about every other scientific theory, why does evolution needs to be different?

If any other theory had the holes that evolution has in it, it would not be considered a theory.

So, as far as I am concerned, did life just came from some "primordial soup"? Yes, most likely it did (until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.

Okay, well then as far as I am concerned the center of the moon is made up of a giant marshmallow(until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.

BobaFett

You keep speaking about evolution. I think nobody here has denied that there is evolution, that evolution exists, the Qur'an says so.

I would also clarify that even when I say Darwinian evolution is not possible I am referring to macro evolution or speciation. I believe all creatures can adapt to their environment to a certain degree.

For example your nostril hair will grow longer and thicker if you move from an area of low pollution to high pollution.. therefor you have evolved right?

So what do we call it when you move back to the low pollution area and your nose hairs get shorter and thinner again? Have you evolved again? Have you devolved? Or is it simply we were created to survive in an ever changing environment and therefor have inbuilt mechanisms for adapting to it.

http//en.rocketnews24.com/2013/01/23/as-asias-pollution-problem-is-on-the-rise-air-pollution-map-based-on-the-length-of-your-nasal-hair/

JavaLatte

BUT, big BUT, what kind of evolution? That is the question. "Darwinian evolution" is bullshit, it is imperial ideology hidden under a cloak of scientific pretences.

Bold Indeed. http//3.bp.blogspot.com/--h4eLCX9klE/UZHjEBYfY2I/AAAAAAAADoo/W5bcUQjtXls/s1600/thumb-up-facebook-emoticon-like-symbol.png

I think I don't have to follow Darwin's theory of evolution.

Why not open ourselves for another theory of evolution?

By the way,

if anyone (of new members perhaps) is interested to read brother Pazuzu's understanding and his discussion about "The First Creation", then try to click the link below.

http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-PCIqjnVgNFQ/U2Lh-t3zeEI/AAAAAAAAGxY/KYfwOlH458w/s1600/white-star.png The First Creation http//3.bp.blogspot.com/-PCIqjnVgNFQ/U2Lh-t3zeEI/AAAAAAAAGxY/KYfwOlH458w/s1600/white-star.png

I think that's very interesting and worth to read.

Scientific stardom is the denial of science, but we live today in an age of scientific starlets and there are people who delight in just being able to voice the sweet name of god Darwin or Einstein and may be two or three more. Science has been reduced to that, to a couple of popular names attached to a couple of great sounding important words and then one can plapper around as much as one wants and sound up to date.

And it looks like people like Darwin and Einstein have become idols too... perhaps "the science" itself also become the object of worship.

So, once again, no, the Qur'an does not support "darwinian evolution". Randomness as the sufficient cause of everything?

Bold Good question.

Salm.

uq

Peace,

Further to my previous posts, I would like to reiterate that I find it extremely hard to believe that speciation of organisms here on earth takes place without Divine intervention.

As an example, the statistical probability of the mutation of the gene(s) responsible for the coloration of the coat of the polar bear's ancestor evolving into a fully white coat would be mind-bogglingly improbable if left purely to random mutation. Even with such a "simple" mutation, the amount of time required to allow for such a development would take longer than the time in which polar bears have existed.

As a simpler example, imagine flipping a coin. The statistical probability of guessing how a coin will land in 20 consecutive throws of a coin are very small. The first time you flip a coin, you have a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of knowing whether the coin will land on heads or tails. The second time you flip a coin, your chances decrease to 1 in 4 (25%). The third time, your chances are 1 in 8 (12.5%). The fourth, 1 in 16 (6.25%). And so on, until you reach your 20th flip of the coin, of which the chances are 1 in 1,048,576 (0.00009537%).

In this coin flipping example, we're talking about a coin where the outcome is only one of two (heads or tails). In genetics, the outcome is one of four (G, A, T or C). Therefore the chances of mutation yielding an evolutionarily advantageous protein are greatly decreased; especially if the gene that codes for a protein is longer than 20 base pairs.

The only negating factor to this belief is that there is an as-of-yet undiscovered in-built mechanism in the genetic code of all organisms that somehow predisposes them to yield evolutionarily advantageous mutations. And God is indeed capable of that. But this has not yet been discovered.

BobaFett

The only negating factor to this belief is that there is an as-of-yet undiscovered in-built mechanism in the genetic code of all organisms that somehow predisposes them to yield evolutionarily advantageous mutations. And God is indeed capable of that. But this has not yet been discovered.

Hi mate.

We know that this is not the case because beneficial mutations are extremely rare while harmful mutations are relatively common. Mutations being genetically passed on are even more rare.

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum brothers and sisters.

Thanks a lot for your valuable contributions. The discussion is going into many different directions and I do not find it worthwhile pursuing each loose end of the discussion. I am pursuing the lines of discussion which I feel can be useful to me to shape my understanding of how we came to the earth. Specifically I was hoping to see some good responses on the following two key questions

What is the alternative theory that can counter theory of evolution and be more consistent with Qur?an and simultaneously make sense.
How and where Qur?an is contradicting the evolution theory.

Alternative Theory

One major alternative theory seems to be ?We don?t know?. Well ? for me, yes we do not know anything for sure, but the point is not what we know or do not know ? it is rather what is the best we have. And whether the best we have makes sense in light of Qur?an or not.

The other alternate theory that I found is the one proposed by brother Pazuzu, which in a nutshell says ? human beings originated from a group of humanoids (proposed translation of Bashar). And these group of humanoids ? as a group - grew directly from earth like plants (proposed translation of nabaatan). This theory is primarily based on the following 2 verses (translations by Sahih International)

1526 And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud.

And

7117 And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a growth.

I have to thank brother Pazuzu for at least coming up with some alternative theory. However, this alternative theory did not appeal to me much. For the following 2 reasons

Per my humble understanding the Arabic term ?Bashar? is the common term to refer to any living being. It can be an animal, a humanoid, even angel or jin or human being. We see Mary, mother of Jesus, claim that she has not been touched by any living being (bashar). We also see Allah say that it is not possible for a living being (bashar) that Allah would give him book, wisdom and knowledge and then he would ask people to be slave to him instead of Allah (379). To translate the term bashar to mean ?humanoid? is a bit too restrictive for me.
As for the term nabaatan in 7117 (translated as ?Progressive growth? by Shahih International and as ?plant-like growth? by brother Pazuzu), the same term has been used to refer exclusively to the growth of Mary, mother of Jesus in 337 ? and we also know from Qur?an that Mary did not grow from earth like a plant ? she was born of lady Imran. So, the more traditional translation of ?progressive growth? seems appropriate to me.

As far as I am concerned, a progressive growth (7117), starting from clay (1526) ? adequately fits in with the evolution theory - it does not necessitate a more dramatic theory of a group of humanoids growing out of earth like plants.

Good try though.

Does Qur?an Contradict Evolution

I was hoping to get more concrete responses in this line ? but my expectations were not met. Most of us seem to agree that some form of evolution is supported by Qur?an but could not clarify which part of it Qur?an does not support.

Some of you proposed me scientific reasoning on why evolution cannot be true. For those ? if you know you have solid scientific and logical proofs to debunk established ideas ? please do go to science journals etc. and establish your point. Once you have done that I will be eagerly waiting in line to congratulate you ? but as long as you have not done that your propositions remain only as an individual?s opinion. Unfortunately I am not an expert in evolutionary biology so I am not in any position to accept or reject your scientific arguments. You are smart enough ? you can reject collective consensus of scientists ? good for you; sad for me - I am not as smart as you ? so I tend to rely on the collective consensus of scientists unless it contradicts my faith. Believe me I am really that unsmart - if, based on some new found data, the scientists today reach a consensus that the inside of the moon is indeed a giant marshmalow - I am really naive enough to believe them because it does not contradict my faith. So, in this forum, I am sincerely not looking for scientific or mathematical arguments on why evolution cannot be true - save your research for your PhD thesis ? please bring me evidence from Qur?an.

The only comment on why evolution is not supportable by Qur?an that I found worth discussing is the one below

So, once again, no, the Qur'an does not support "darwinian evolution". Randomness as the sufficient cause of everything?

Yes ? ?Randomness? that is the key word ? that is the root of the debate. Now before we start debating on the term let?s explore what this term means, shall we?

What is the best example of a random event? Flip of a coin? Throwing a dice may be, right? Do I believe these events as random? Yes, I do. But at the same time I know that when I flip a coin ? whether it would be head or tail is decided by God. Similarly, when I throw a dice the result is determined by God. So while an atheist definition of the term ?Random? is ?lacking any definite plan or prearranged order? a believer?s definition of the term ?Random? should be ?lacking any definite plan or prearranged order other than will of God (implicit)?. That is the fundamental difference between atheist and believer thought process. So, when an evolutionary biologist says life came out of inorganic matters as a random event ?

An Atheist would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order. Whereas
A Believer would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order other than will of God (implicit).

We, the believers, generally agree to keep the "will of God" implicit in science/mathematics discussion - not because we admit defeat - but rather because we draw a line between materialistic knowledge and theological wisdom. We deliberately agree to keep these two fields separate ONLY so that our disagreement on one field does not hamper our ability to objectively discuss in the other field.

If we are in a mission to make this ?will of God? as a mandatory explicit addition to any intellectual discussion ? we should reject all books of mathematics to make them rewrite to change the word "random" with the phrase "random subject to will of God." We should protest ?Generate Random Number ? button in calculators ? we should insist on ?Generate Numbers based on will of God ? button.

But if we do accept the term Random as is in mathematics and science discussions ? and are happy to deal with it keeping the ?will of God? implicit - in every other field of study ? I really do not see the reason to make a big fuzz about it when it comes to evolution theory.

The other word worth noting in the statement ?Randomness is the sufficient cause of everything? is ?cause?. The term cause can have two meanings ? one is ?The reason How? the other is ?The reason Why?. If I get stomach pain ? the cause can be a) because of a signal generated in my brain in reaction to harmful activities of a bacteria inside my stomach. b) because I could not resist myself from eating too much junk food yesterday. A ? is the reason how, B is the reason why.

For me Randomness is the sufficient reason how life came to earth BUT NOT the sufficient reason why life came to earth. If any scientist or atheist tries to insist evolution theory explains the reason WHY ? then my friend I have to object and say "Sorry dear ? this is where you are crossing your boundary". Science does not answer why anything happens or why things are as they are, we all have our own individual perspectives on that. That?s where the reign of science ends and where the reign of philosophy / theology begins.

I believe what we need to protest is how the theory of evolution is sometimes misused to give an impression that it answers why life came to earth. IT DOES NOT. But as of now it seems to be the best available theory to explain how life came to earth (Note I am not counting "I don't know" as a theory) - and from that angle I still do not see Qur'an to contradict it.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,

Arman